ArticleBMC gastroenterology2025
EUS-FNA with ROSE for pancreatic solid lesions: a single-center experience.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRapid On-Site Evaluation (ROSE) improves sample quality and diagnostic accuracy by allowing for immediate examination of collected specimens. In this paper we evaluated diagnostic value of Endoscopic Ultrasound Guided Fine Needle Aspiration (EUS-FNA) and ROSE for pancreatic space occupying lesions and the rapidity of ROSE.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 107 cases of pancreatic space-occupying lesions undergoing EUS-FNA performed by a single endoscopist at the Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Guizhou Medical University between December 2022 and October 2024. ROSE and cytological examination were conducted concurrently for all cases. Utilizing final clinical diagnoses as the reference standard, we evaluated the diagnostic performance—encompassing sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, along with positive and negative predictive values—of cytological examination, rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE), endosonography-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), and EUS-FNA + ROSE. Additionally, the reporting times for ROSE, cytology, and EUS-FNA pathological results were analyzed.
resultsAmong 107 patients (62 males, 45 females; mean age 59.92 ± 10.98 years; mean lesion size 34.31 ± 28.36 mm), final diagnoses confirmed 87 malignant and 20 benign lesions. The diagnostic performance was as follows: Cytology: sensitivity 88.5%, specificity 100%, accuracy 90.7%, PPV 100%, NPV 66.7%;ROSE alone: sensitivity 87.3%, specificity 100%, accuracy 89.7%, PPV 100%, NPV 64.5%;EUS-FNA alone: sensitivity 89.6%, specificity 100%, accuracy 91.6%, PPV 100%, NPV 70.0%; EUS-FNA + ROSE: sensitivity 98.9%, specificity 100%, accuracy 99.1%, PPV 100%, NPV 95.2%; Statistical analysis revealed substantial agreement between ROSE (κ = 0.721), cytology (κ = 0.742), and EUS-FNA (κ = 0.764) with final diagnoses (all P < 0.05). The combined approach achieved near-perfect agreement (κ = 0.970, P < 0.05). Mean turnaround times differed significantly: ROSE (38.81 min) versus cytology (2748.25 min; ~1.9 days) and EUS-FNA pathology (5168.32 min; ~3.6 days). No procedure-related complications occurred.
conclusionsROSE compensates for limitations in puncture sampling and delayed cytology reporting by providing real-time preliminary diagnosis. When integrated into EUS-FNA procedures, the combined approach demonstrates high sensitivity (98.9%) and near-perfect diagnostic consistency (κ = 0.970). This synergy increases both puncture success rates and overall diagnostic accuracy, delivering evidence-based guidance for clinical decision-making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.